As reported last week in the Wall Street Journal, Google has banned the privacy and security app Disconnect Mobile from the play store. By doing so, Google has shown once again that it cares more about allowing third-parties to monetize the tracking of its users than about allowing those users to ensure their own security and privacy. The banned app, Disconnect Mobile, is designed to stop non-consensual third party trackers on Android (much like EFF's Privacy Badger does in Firefox or Chrome). Disconnect released their app in the Android Play Store and Apple's App Store a little over a week ago. Google removed the app just five days after it was released, citing Section 4.4 of the Play Store developer distribution agreement.1 This section states that developers agree not to use the Play Store to distribute apps that interfere with or disrupt the services of any third party.

On its face this may seem like a reasonable rule―it would block DDOS tools from the Play Store, for example―but on further inspection it's obvious that this rule is overly vague, allowing Google to be selective in its enforcement. After all, any antivirus app or firewall could be considered to be violating these terms of service, since they would interfere with the services of a (malicious) third-party. Yet firewall and antivirus apps abound in the Play Store. Clearly enforcement of this clause is selective.

So why is Disconnect Mobile being targeted? This question seems especially puzzling given that Disconnect’s goal—blocking non-consensual third-party trackers—is as virtuous as the goals of any antivirus or firewall app. After all, who would want shadowy services collecting their browsing habits across the Internet without their consent? An app that blocks trackers like this seems like it would be a great thing to have in the Play Store, especially when you consider that the trackers it blocks can be used for nefarious goals such as spreading malware and spying on civilians. Simply put, technologies such as Disconnect and Privacy Badger are important for the security and privacy of end users. They are also incredibly popular―within days of being in the Apple App store Disconnect is already the number one utility app.

So again, why is Disconnect Mobile being targeted? The problem lies in the fact that many online advertisers participate in this sneaky tracking in order to build up reading profiles of users for marketing purposes, whether users have opted in or not. As a result, Disconnect Mobile blocks these types of ads—even though ad-blocking is incidental to its primary goal. Because of this, Google has deemed Disconnect Mobile to be “interfering” with these sneaky third-party services—services its users don’t want. In other words, Google appears to be interpreting its rules to mean that "apps that interfere with Google's business model" will be banned, rather than "apps that interfere with user security and privacy." By removing this app from the Play Store Google is putting its users at risk and sending the message that it cares more about its bottom line than its users' security.2

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Google has decided to prioritize third-party ad services over its users’ privacy. Just last year Google removed a similar application, Adblock Plus, from the app store for the same reasons it cites now. By removing these applications, we believe that Google is setting a dangerous precedent. The profits of Google's business partners should never come before the security and privacy of its users.

Fortunately, this doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Google could easily re-write their policy to allow apps in the Play Store that, at the direction of Android users, block third-party tracking systems while still allowing advertisements that respect user's privacy preferences. We strongly encourage Google to make this change―otherwise their users will start to migrate to app distribution platforms that support privacy and freedom, and Google could see its well of ad revenues start to run dry.

2. We should point out that you can still sideload apps like Disconnect Mobile on to your phone even if they’re not in the Play Store. While we applaud the fact that Google allows sideloaded apps on Android, the fact remains that most users do not know how to sideload applications. Sideloading is also a significantly more time-consuming process, and sideloaded apps also do not benefit from being automatically updated, causing security problems if users are not getting patched software. In light of this, sideloading is obviously not an adequate solution.

Related Updates

Today Google launched a new version of its Chrome browser with what they call an "ad filter"—which means that it sometimes blocks ads but is not an "ad blocker." EFF welcomes the elimination of the worst ad formats. But Google's approach here is a band-aid response to the crisis of...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Privacy Office, and Office of Field Operations recently invited privacy stakeholders—including EFF and the ACLU of Northern California—to participate in a briefing and update on how the CBP is implementing its Biometric Entry/Exit Program. As we’ve written ...

San Francisco, California—Face recognition—fast becoming law enforcement’s surveillance tool of choice—is being implemented with little oversight or privacy protections, leading to faulty systems that will disproportionately impact people of color and may implicate innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, says an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ...

It should not be surprising that arguably the biggest mistake in Internet policy history is going to invoke a vast political response. Since the FCC repealed federal Open Internet Order in December, many states have attempted to fill the void. With a new bill that reinstates net neutrality protections, Oregon...

Last month, Congress reauthorized Section 702, the controversial law the NSA uses to conduct some of its most invasive electronic surveillance. With Section 702 set to expire, Congress had a golden opportunity to fix the worst flaws in the NSA’s surveillance programs and protect Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights...

President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address last night was remarkable for two reasons: for what he said, and for what he didn’t say. The president took enormous pride last night in claiming to have helped “extinguish ISIS from the face of the Earth.” But he failed to...

State agencies in California are collecting and using more data now than they ever, and much of this data includes very personal information about California residents. This presents a challenge for agencies and the courts—how to make government-held data that’s indisputably of...

It’s Spain's turn to take a closer look at the practices of their local Internet companies, and how they treat their customers’ personal data. Spain's ¿Quien Defiende Tus Datos? (Who Defends Your Data?) is a project of ETICAS Foundation, and is part of a region-wide initiative by leading...

It’s Spain's turn to take a closer look at the practices of their local Internet companies, and how they treat their customers’ personal data. Spain's ¿Quien Defiende Tus Datos? (Who Defends Your Data?) is a project of ETICAS Foundation, and is part of a region-wide initiative by leading...